William Collins et al. v. Lantern Point Association, Inc. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The present action involves problems caused to residents of the Fairfield Beach area as a result of gatherings of college students on the beach usually during the spring of each year.   A temporary injunction was originally issued in April of 2001.   That injunction is now permanent and has subsequently been modified by stipulation of the parties on a few occasions.   Insofar as here relevant, the injunction prohibits the defendant, from “holding, housing or any way allowing any event attracting more than two hundred fifty (250) students to take place upon the common areas of the Lantern Point Association at any time during the period from September 1 through May 31 of each year.”   The plaintiffs have now filed an application to show cause why the defendant should not be found to be in contempt for failure to obey the injunction because more than 250 students were on the defendant's property on Saturday, May 1, 2010.   For purposes of this proceeding the defendant admits that more than 250 students were located on the common areas of the defendant's property.   The problems caused to the plaintiffs, who live in the immediate vicinity of the defendant's property, are real and significant.   The issue, however, is not empathy for the plaintiff but, rather whether the defendant should be found in contempt for violation of an injunction issued by the court.

On the day prior to May 1st, one of the plaintiffs received information that a party may be held in the Fairfield Beach area on the following day.   Accordingly, she sent an email both to the Fairfield police and to the representatives of the defendant.   The defendant has an agreement with an international security firm to provide security for the association units.   After receiving the information with respect to the potential party, the defendant increased the security personnel on the property from two to five individuals.   The president of the defendant association and other members were located on the property around noon time on May 1st which was a nice spring day.   Nothing unusual was happening at that time.   Around 3:00 o'clock large crowds started to gather on the general Fairfield beach area.   Some estimates of the number of people in the general area were between 500 and 800 college students on the beach front of the defendant's and adjoining properties.   The common area of the defendant's property include the beach area down to the high water mark.

The defendant issues resident passes to all the students who live on the property and also issues guest passes for students who are invited as guests.   The defendant also holds orientation meetings for its tenants in the spring and fall of each year, at which a representative of the Fairfield police attends.   At these meetings the terms of the injunction are identified and stressed.   On May 1, 2010, representatives of the defendant attempted to ask individuals to display their resident or guest passes and if the passes could not be produced the individuals were asked to leave the property.   Some complied some did not.   Fairfield police were called and came to the general area and 26 infractions were issued for violations such as open containers, littering, possession of alcohol by a minor and creating a public disturbance.   Two criminal arrests were also made for interfering with the police.   The police logged 16 1/2 hours of overtime.   Despite such activity, the crowd was generally described as well behaved.

Representatives of the defendant requested the police to disperse the crowd and to make arrests for trespassing for those individuals who did not have either resident or guest cards.   Police declined to make arrests and to disperse the crowds because of the manpower they had at their disposal at that time and the inadvisability of discharging so many students, many of whom were drinking alcohol, in or on the public streets.   Police made a judgment to try to control the situation as best as possible and not try to make arrests for trespassing or to attempt to remove the trespassers from the property.

The security guards for the defendant locked the street entrances and made all people pass through a location where the guards were located.   No one was admitted who did not have either a resident or guest card to display to the security officers.

Around 3:00, large groups of people started congregating in the Fairfield beach area including the area in front of the defendant's property and on its common areas including the beach.   There is however no credible evidence that any alcohol or beer was being dispensed on the property of the defendant or that it was “holding” or “housing” the event.   Students were coming to the Fairfield beach area in any way they could;  many of whom were crossing over the jetties on the water and many of whom carrying open containers of beer or coolers.   The event was a gathering of college students in the general Fairfield beach area more than 250 of whom were located in a “common area” above the high water mark.

While the court is mindful of the disturbance created for the individual plaintiffs who live in the nearby area, the evidence is insufficient for the court to find that the defendant either held, housed or allowed the event to take place.   The defendant increased the security force when it learned of the potential party in the beach area;  its representatives attempted to enforce the resident and guest pass policies;  the assistance of the Fairfield police was requested in an attempt to prevent more than 250 students to be located on the common areas of the defendant association.   Absent the ability to use arrest powers or to use force, even a much larger security force would have been unable to keep less than 250 students from the “common area.”

Accordingly the application to hold the defendant in contempt for the violation of the injunction is hereby denied.   The Motion to Dismiss the action based upon the delay in bringing the Application is denied due to the lack of evidence as to prejudice.

RUSH, J.T.R.

Rush, William B., J.T.R.